Is there some rule, some demarcation line where you can say "it's not the individual people, it's the overall religion" ? Can you personally articulate a rule of thumb when a generalization or stereotype would be appropriate?

So, often we like to say about our own group's faults that it is not our religion, it is the fallible people who make mistakes. About other groups, we like to say that it is their whole approach that is wrong and that is what makes the individual people messed up. Is this just a cognitive bias towards our own group or is there some real line for you? And remember the title of this thread in your answer.

So if 30% of all people in a particular religion were known to be shoplifters, you would not generalize to their whole religion, but if 75% were shoplifters then you would say it is the religion's fault? Or would you ignore percentages and do it based on what their leaders say? Which leaders, the most strict ones or would you count the reform and conservative too? Would you just base it on their texts?

If you are more comfortable using the term philosophy or group approach instead of religion, that is fine too, my question would still apply.

As an aside, this question is not specifically about Muslims or Jews or any other group, it is a combination of different things that I have been thinking about lately.

for me, it we are looking at overall percentages, it would have to be 100%...or at least 90%

If we are looking at anything else, it would have to be in the formal doctrine or 'laws', not just fringe readings. (like not all Mormons are bigamists, most arent, but those that are say they are following the right law and the others arent).

I generally judge a person based on their own actions, not the actions of someone living halfway across the world from them that they happen to share a religion with (at least in name)

I actually defriended an acquaintance today over this. She not only said that the actions of a few represented the actions of the whole (which she has said for a while, I just ignored) but today she advocated for total annihilation of that group, including children because of this belief.

I think we need to historicize this question, in addition to recognizing that we are answering this question from a biased viewpoint (as would almost anyone answering this question). Additionally, are talking straight religion, or one group's interpretation of religion? For example, look at the Westboro Baptist Church. They are not an accurate sampling of the behavior of all Xians.

Does this make sense? I suppose I'm trying to say that Marina's question is a valid one for a sociology or comparative religions course, to tease out points on the importance of bias (hidden or not), how someone's background influences decision making, and how the samples we are exposed to may not be reflective of the group as a whole.

(This answer is the product of a humanities-based education, which means that I took up two paragraphs and said nothing.)

You have to distinguish here between a race and a religion. There is a difference between saying people are intrinsically a certain way because of their race and saying that their behavior is flawed because they follow a certain religion. Judaism is both a religion and a race, which is confusing, and few people know the difference between Muslims and Arabs.

I think you can judge a religion by its leadership, which admittedly is tricky to define, but I think you could get a consensus on who the leaders of each major branch of Judaism are. And then you can say, yes, there are people setting dumpsters on fire and spraying bleach at girls in Geulah and running Ponzi schemes, but you can't find a single (major) rabbi who says that's acceptable, let alone desirable.

And I would judge a race in a very boring way: test if the difference in the prevalence of a trait between its population and the general population is statistically significant.

islam is a religion of peace and Allah swt dose not encourage violence at all

but you will find corrupted people in every religion unfortunately.

they deceive people by dressing like muslims but in there hearts they hide a much darker secret and there is many hadiths about these people and Allah has also described these so called peace makers in the holy Qur'an

Just replace "dressing like muslims" with "wearing a beard and payos."

I quoted the post because I thought it added force to the original question. When someone Jewish does something reprehensible, we say, "Don't judge Judaism by the Jews," and here the Muslims are saying the same thing.

islam is a religion of peace and Allah swt dose not encourage violence at all

but you will find corrupted people in every religion unfortunately.

they deceive people by dressing like muslims but in there hearts they hide a much darker secret and there is many hadiths about these people and Allah has also described these so called peace makers in the holy Qur'an

Just replace "dressing like muslims" with "wearing a beard and payos."

We could, of course, get bogged down in the same old Muslim- Jew debate, but that would be boring. We all know what everyone else thinks about that topic.

Let's try to expand a bit to other groups. What if someone said to you:

* It's a well known fact that Chinese mothers are overly harsh towards their children.
* It's a well known fact that Jewish mothers worry too much
* It's a well known fact that men are sexist pigs
* It's a well known fact that lesbians are too aggressive
* It's a well known fact that Catholic women are too submissive

How would you evaluate the truth of those statements? Just based on your own experience and whom you met? At what point would you be justified in generalizing to the entire group, even people whom you haven't met? At what point could you be comfortable in saying that the cause is that group's philosophy or approach and not the fault of the individual?

When could you say, yes it is the Chinese culture that makes women be overly harsh towards their children and yes, it is Catholicism that encourages women to be too submissive vs saying that it is the make-up of those individuals that is at fault? Where is the line?

I generally dont comment on this type of topic, but I guess theres always a first time. I think if a religion or group considers a certain action acceptable, it comes to embody that religion. So it doesnt matter if in reality thirty or seventy percent are shoplifters. If religion x believes that shoplifting is ok, one would be justified in saying believers of religion x are shoplifters.

If religion x believes that shoplifting is ok, one would be justified in saying believers of religion x are shoplifters

How do you tell what they believe? By their books? By their leaders? By their actions? What if there are factions like reform, conservative, orthodox and factions within factions and they all have a different take on whether shoplifting is ok and when and from what stores or maybe never.

Is there some rule, some demarcation line where you can say "it's not the individual people, it's the overall religion" ? Can you personally articulate a rule of thumb when a generalization or stereotype would be appropriate?

Are you asking how true (on a percentage basis) something has to be to be a stereotype?

Or are you asking what percentage of followers of a religion must behave a certain way in order for the religion to be seen as the cause for the behavior?

Sometimes it's not directly a result of the group's philosophy but indirectly. I know you're not talking about just Jews but that's what I can think of for now. So for ex. if you stereotyped Frum Jews as cheating on taxes it might be a result of a frum lifestyle being extremely expensive and they can't resist the temptation (I'm not justifying it...just explaining). It's not because the Rabbanim announced that Jews should cheat. Or Chinese mothers harsh to their children? I didn't research it but off the top of my head, maybe because they're only allowed one child, so they invest everything in him/her.

Quote:

At what point would you be justified in generalizing to the entire group, even people whom you haven't met? At what point could you be comfortable in saying that the cause is that group's philosophy or approach and not the fault of the individual?

So I think it if the majority of the group all do it, then I would attribute it to the group philosophy. Ex. Nearly all ultra orthodox woman cover their hair because their Rabbis said so. It it's just a fraction, yet a still a high percentage (like say 1/3) it might be indirect causes, environmental or culture.

If religion x believes that shoplifting is ok, one would be justified in saying believers of religion x are shoplifters

How do you tell what they believe? By their books? By their leaders? By their actions? What if there are factions like reform, conservative, orthodox and factions within factions and they all have a different take on whether shoplifting is ok and when and from what stores or maybe never.

how can u tell what they believe? The same way they know what they believe. Jews, for example, have the torah. It tells us that stealing is forbidden. A handful of ppl who happen to feel that shoplifting from shoprite at three thirty six every other day is ok wouldnt change the general outlook of the religion. If a significant amount of ppl shoplift, it reflects ploolrly in the religion, but doesnt change the religion itselfs views. Jews are still forbidden to steal.